EclectEcon

I have always felt uneasy with arguments (and especially arguers) on both sides of the global warming questions. I have a sense that people from both sides make selective use of data and examples, and I am quite put off by the ad hominem arguments that are made (particularly by those who label the questioner-skeptics as "deniers" and pawns of the carbon-based fuel industries).

This uneasiness that I have felt probably explains why I continue to encourage readers to avoid the ad hominems and to look at the arguments put forward by the questioner-skeptics with an open mind. Here and here [h/t to Cafe Hayek] are two columns from The Boston Globe that raise very important questions about global warming and the extent to which it

• (a) is or is not occurring
• (b)is caused by human burning of fossil fuels
• (c) can or should be ameliorated and
• (d) can be controlled in any sense that might be considered "cost-effective".

After reading those two items, it is difficult not to be skeptical or at least less zealous about promoting the Kyoto agreement.

And speaking of the Kyoto Accords, if you have the time, watch this scathing attack on the global warming zealots (I'm really not trying to name-call here, but that term applies to many of the people I've talked with [h/t to Judith]).

If you have an open mind, and if you must rely on appeals to authority, after watching this video and after reading the articles from The Boston Globe, at the very least you will be saying, "hmmmmm....maybe things aren't quite as they are presented by the major media when it comes to global warming..."